The similar phrase 'Worldly Christianity' is one used by Bonhoeffer. It's J Gresham Machen that I want to line up most closely with. See his Christianity and culture here. Having done commentaries on Proverbs (Heavenly Wisdom) and Song of Songs (Heavenly Love), a matching title for Ecclesiastes would be Heavenly Worldliness. For my stance on worldliness, see 3 posts here.

Review of Creation


I haven't seen my copy of October's Evangelical Times yet but I believe a review by me similar to this one appears there

Creation is the title of a new feature film currently showing in British cinemas, a film that undoubtedly will catch the attention of many thoughtful people. The “creation” of the title is not God's creation as such but the creation of a book written 150 years ago this year that continues to have a tremendous effect around the world to this day. The book, The origin of species was written by Charles Darwin and the film, based on the book Annie's Box by Randal Keynes, traces the story of its writing.
While using flashbacks to build up the biographical picture, the film focuses chiefly on the final year or so of writing the book and sending the manuscript off. Darwin is pictured as an attractive even heroic, though flawed, individual. Various factors combine to first delay then spur him on to publication. Though encouraged to publish by friends like Hooker and Huxley, the blessing of a wife, finally reconciled to the idea is much more hard won. A letter from Alfred Wallace outlining the same theory, what seems to be a psychosomatic illness and the fear that he is unleashing something that would destroy society and even God himself are also strong factors in Darwin's decision. Interwoven with this is his relationship with a favourite daughter whose death profoundly affects him.
A film about a man writing a book is a potentially dull subject but those involved in this production are seasoned professionals, such as Jon Amiel. The combination of skilful writing full of drama, fine acting, especially from lead actors, husband and wife team Paul Bettanny and Jennifer Connelly, beautiful sets, excellent filming, good music and very high production standards make this a powerful film indeed.
One may want to quibble with certain anachronisms, doubtful dramatic devices and even straight errors in the film but a production of this sort is intended to create an impression rather than to get every detail just right. No, the film needs to be criticised chiefly for its thesis regarding the theory of evolution. It appears to be saying that, yes, there are extremists in the scientific world and among evolutionists. Thomas Huxley, for example, is presented in a very unattractive way. But then there are extremists among those who follow religion, too. Rev Innes, the vicar of Downe, is caricatured as a man who eventually will not even speak to Darwin and who at one point makes Annie kneel in rock salt, scarring her knees, as a penance for believing that dinosaurs existed!
But most of us, so the thesis goes, are somewhere in the middle. On one hand, there are people like Darwin himself and his close friend Joseph D Hooker, who are eminently reasonable. They have no desire to cause trouble. They simply want to know the truth. Sometimes they are fearful of public reaction and can suffer greatly for their commitment to truth but they often show a quiet courage that does not lead to murder in the streets but to a great deal of enlightenment.
Then on the other hand, there are people like most readers of this newspaper, no doubt, - religious people, gentle and pious people, who respect the minister and read Pilgrims Progress to our children, as Darwin's wife does in the film. Yes, we may feel quite estranged from the scientists and their strange ideas at times but if we will only consider then we will see that they are right. Like Mrs Darwin, who reads the manuscript of Origin of Species right through when it is finished then gives her husband her blessing, we too ought to see the truth of evolution and stop carping about it being evil and untrue.
Well, that is how, it seems to me, the film wants us to see it. It is important to remember, however, that life as portrayed on the screen, is often inaccurate and untrue. The fact is that though Charles Darwin, by God's common grace, no doubt had many attractive features, his theory of evolution was wrong. Not only is it wrong but it has an evil anti-God core and many of the terrible things that Darwin no doubt dreaded have come to pass, partly fuelled by acceptance of evolutionary theories.
What the late Henry Morris referred to, in a book about the history of evolutionary theories, as The long war against God is continuing and this film is simply the latest widespread piece of propaganda in that war. We need to point out to the uninitiated what is going on and resist the false caricatures that people this piece.

7 comments:

Jonathan Hunt said...

Indeed it is . page 13.

Anonymous said...

Good point, I agree; Christians can be drawn into the same kind of errors, can't they? - particularly when it comes to historical figures. We've got to be careful to avoid the same false portrayals - especially seeing and reading into characters things that just weren't there....

William Wilson said...

Gray i have read part of your review which is on page13 of the October E.Times and it is very good indeed. And yes we do need to be careful in what we see as Historical Figures and to avoid some false protrays.So very good review Gary.

Unknown said...

Hello Heavenly Worldliness.

I've just read your blog for the first time. I'm a scientist pursuing a research master's degree during which I've learned some things about evolution. I've learned about its explanation for the diversity of life on Earth, speciation, explanation of observable phenomena such as the famous 'peppered moth', and even read about the application of evolutionary principles to medicine and the treatment of diseases. I'd always assumed that understanding natural phenomenon and ameliorating suffering were noble pursuits, so to hear that evolution is both wrong AND evil is incredibly troubling to me.

How do you know that the theory of evolution is wrong? I mean, in my education I was always taught to believe in a process of falsification attempts; weak theories would be easily falsified and strong ones would stick around and gather an inertia as more and more falsification attempts failed. The theory of evolution seems to make a large number of predictions that correspond to observations of the world. But if something's missing from that picture, please share it with me.

Can a scientific theory (or indeed a theory of any sort) be evil? I've spent many long hard years trundling through classes and reading books and trying my best to understand the philosophy of science and what constitutes a good theory; never once did I see anything about theories being good or evil. That's not an appeal to personal experience, just a statement - if I missed something that important, I really want you to tell me about it!

I'm sure all the other people who read this blog would also appreciate you backing up your strong statements with evidence; this is obviously something you feel strongly about, and if you're appealing to everyone to resist these 'false caricatures', I bet you've got some really strong evidence to support your claims. I guess I qualify - since I've never seen this really strong evidence you've got - as 'one of the uninitiated'. So, what IS going on?

All the best
Tom

Gary Brady said...

Tom
Thanks for taking the time to write. I am not a scientist but I do read the Bible often and with care and it would seem clear to me that one can't accept evolutionary theory and Genesis. I am aware, however,that there are professing Christians that do. I have never understood how.
You mention the peppered moth. I don't understand all the ins and outs of this one but perhaps you could start here http://creation.com/goodbye-peppered-moths.
A theory can certainly be evil. Take the theory that black people are inferior to white people for example. It would seem to me that some of the problems we have in modern society cna be traced in part to evolutionary thinking.
I really do urge you to check out what creation scientists have to say. You won't agree wioth all of it (I don't) but if you read Gnesis honestly you will see that it is never going to square with what they teach in the classrooms of our land today.
I hope that is of some use to you. One book among many you may find helpful is The Green Eye of the Storm by Joh Rendle Short (summary here - http://www.banneroftruth.org/pages/articles/article_detail.php?989).

Unknown said...

Hi Gary

I don't want to seem disrespectful to you, but when two different theories are in contradiction, isn't the best thing to do to see which one of them fits the evidence better?

I mean, that's what I do, and I'm sure it's what you do in almost every other context. If you were a witness in a jury, for example, and you had to decide whether a defendant was guilty or innocent (two competing theories), how would you choose? You'd probably look at the evidence and think about it. That's what I'd have to do with the creation story; there's overwhelming evidence for species evolving. Is there similarly strong evidence for the story of Genesis? Again... you obviously feel strongly about this so you must have some really good evidence to share. What is it?

I'd wager that those Christians who believe in the Christian God AND evolution reconcile this by not taking the bible literally. They see it as metaphorical, rather than true in every word. Do you consider it to be literally true?

Gary Brady said...

Your idea about comparing evidence seems sound but it is based ona presupposition - that we are able to sift the evidence correctly. In fact, juries don't always get it right.
The Bible teaches that we all know there is a God but we suppress that truth. If that is so then we will be predisposed not to accept the truth, which makes dealing with evidence difficult.
I consider Genesis to be true. If you are going to be honest with the text, I don't think there is any other way to take it except in what you call a literal way (the same way I am taking what you have written). There are poetic descriptions of creation in the Bible but that is not what Genesis 1 is. The strong evidence for Genesis being true is the way it has been accepted over such a long period by such diverse peoples. It also fits in very well with the evidence in a way that evolution fails to do. I think the acceptance of creation and a world wide flood as recorded in Genesis makes a lot more sense than evolution. Take fossils for example and the fact no intermediaries have ever been found, which evolution cannot adequately explain.
I get the impression (though I may be wrong) that you have not actually read Genesis. I suggest you actually read it with an open mind and then see what you think.